Paul J Posted July 18, 2016 Share #281 Posted July 18, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) The manufacturers and sellers of jeans (with and without holes) earn a quite comfortable living, to say the least. Margins in the textile branch are at a level which the makers of photographic gear can but dream of. You questioned the sense of selling hamstrung goods. I mentioned some of those goods. Keep your shirt on. If you are suggesting a high res 35mm camera is a hamstrung good then your perception of hamstrung in this instance is skewed from mine, my colleagues, and the thousands of people that are happy using them to great effect. People make money from selling jeans with holes. No one makes a living from wearing them so the analogy is not even comparable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 Hi Paul J, Take a look here How many megapixels in the next M?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted July 18, 2016 Share #282 Posted July 18, 2016 We are just questioning whether a camera with the concept of the M is the right camera to offer a high resolution sensor, Paul. I think it is clear to everybody that there can be plenty of reasons to need a high-resolution one, especially for professionals. My point is that it might be better to use a suitable camera for the purpose. As for the question of professional or amateur camera, I have always maintained that if there is a distinction -which is debatable-, the M is aimed at the high-end amateur market, not at the professional one, despite being as good as it gets for some professional applications. Putting it into the hands of high-profile "users", including well-known photographers is just a marketing exercise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted July 18, 2016 Share #283 Posted July 18, 2016 Of course he can, but personally - in my profession I do look for the most suitable tool and discard those that are unsuited. For my hobby? It is different, as I can do things for fun without being under pressure to deliver the best result I can. Which includes things like using 400 mm lenses on the M8 and M9 and doing macro with any M camera. If I were professional I would not dream of doing so. You can't really relate Dentistry to Photography though Jaap! I have the ability to experiment and test over long periods of time - something I'm very glad you, and hopefully my dentist, don't do The job of the artist is different - not to go for the conventional. Their point of view is ultimately what is important, but their aesthetic comes very close and in some jobs is what a client wants first and foremost. For what I do the M, 21mm - 90mm is perfect and I could not want anything more in the actual working ergonomics of the camera and system (other than resolution) that I find elsewhere. Something like the Noctilux is unique and it sometimes suits my message. I don't really have the need to shoot over 135mm and if I do then I use the Canon, sure the M is not suited to that. It is not in any way hindered by it's design and in fact I prefer range finder focussing in things like editorial photography which is not that far removed from reportage. It only differs in that you have to create what is going on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 18, 2016 Share #284 Posted July 18, 2016 You can't really relate Dentistry to Photography though Jaap! I have the ability to experiment and test over long periods of time - something I'm very glad you, and hopefully my dentist, don't do The job of the artist is different - not to go for the conventional. Their point of view is ultimately what is important, but their aesthetic comes very close and in some jobs is what a client wants first and foremost. For what I do the M, 21mm - 90mm is perfect and I could not want anything more in the actual working ergonomics of the camera and system (other than resolution) that I find elsewhere. Something like the Noctilux is unique and it sometimes suits my message. I don't really have the need to shoot over 135mm and if I do then I use the Canon, sure the M is not suited to that. It is not in any way hindered by it's design and in fact I prefer range finder focussing in things like editorial photography which is not that far removed from reportage. It only differs in that you have to create what is going on. How do you think changes in my profession are arrived at? - and the rate of change is high Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted July 18, 2016 Share #285 Posted July 18, 2016 We are just questioning whether a camera with the concept of the M is the right camera to offer a high resolution sensor, Paul. I think it is clear to everybody that there can be plenty of reasons to need a high-resolution one, especially for professionals. My point is that it might be better to use a suitable camera for the purpose. As for the question of professional or amateur camera, I have always maintained that if there is a distinction -which is debatable-, the M is aimed at the high-end amateur market, not at the professional one, despite being as good as it gets for some professional applications. Putting it into the hands of high-profile "users", including well-known photographers is just a marketing exercise. I understand what you are saying Jaap, it is a high ticket item that the average pro can not afford and the wealthy amateur can, but that does not in anyway diminish it's capability and there is a very wide spread use of high profile users who are not in anyway affiliated with Leica using the M system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted July 18, 2016 Share #286 Posted July 18, 2016 For my needs, I'm happy with the 24 Mpixel cameras Leica has made for me. If they make a higher resolution camera and I can afford to buy it, I'll give it a shot and report back whether it's better or worse for my photography. I don't make oversized prints very often, I think the largest I've ever made was a 24x48 inch for a client just one time. The camera that made the exposure was a 5Mpixel Olympus E-1. It came out very nicely. Whether it would have been improved with more pixel resolution at capture time is a question that cannot ever be answered. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted July 18, 2016 Share #287 Posted July 18, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I do not care how many megapixels will be in the next M. But after holding on to my M8.2 and with enough money in the bank, I am ready to jump on the next generation M. Leica, please do not let me wait any much longer then Photokina. Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 18, 2016 Share #288 Posted July 18, 2016 36*36 would indeed be a larger format but the circle enclosing 36*24 would not. Instead of throwing away pixels by absorbing them in black paint, fans of rectangles could set a menu option to discard them from the sensor. I don't think many M mount lenses will cover 36x36mm at infinity. The diagonal would be ~51mm. A 135mm might, and maybe a 90mm, but that leaves out a lot of useful lenses. Another thing to consider is whether many M lenses have a physical cut-off for coverage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted July 18, 2016 Share #289 Posted July 18, 2016 I'm talking about a 43mm diameter circle - one that encloses the 36*24 rectangle. Not sure where the 36mm square came from; I assumed a typo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 19, 2016 Share #290 Posted July 19, 2016 Well you can interpret what you like but my intention has never been to belittle - the general reception I get is hostile whenever I suggest the notion of extra megapixels - like I'm some sort of pixel peeping ignorant dilettante who doesn't understand what real photography is and takes horrendously boring photos by default. I only bring notice to my "professionalism" if I'm challenged and when it is relevant to the conversation. I post with a psuedonym, I don't care what you think of my professionalism - I don't think anyone cares for it. I come here to add to discussion, create discussion from a different point of view that doesn't happen to be widely represented on this forum, and that is a conversation that Leica themselves listen into. You can take it or leave it, it makes no difference to me.I get it, you have your uses and needs, as do I. So Leica need to rise to the challenge and create a system where everyone benefits.I hadn't noticed anyone being critical of your photography. I don't think I've ever seen a photo of yours (not that it's even remotely relevant to your opinions). Perhaps I didn't make myself clear - your photography or mine isn't the point. The fact someone takes great photos, or not, has nothing to do with it, and it certainly does add weight to their opinions one way or the other The best photos I've seen were mostly taken on film - my interest is primarily composition, not resolution. I suspect my favourite photos were also not shot on commission (sorry) - I can't recall a commcerial (paid for) image that did much for me, but then I don't go looking for them ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted July 19, 2016 Share #291 Posted July 19, 2016 I hadn't noticed anyone being critical of your photography. I don't think I've ever seen a photo of yours (not that it's even remotely relevant to your opinions). Perhaps I didn't make myself clear - your photography or mine isn't the point. The fact someone takes great photos, or not, has nothing to do with it, and it certainly does add weight to their opinions one way or the other The best photos I've seen were mostly taken on film - my interest is primarily composition, not resolution. I suspect my favourite photos were also not shot on commission (sorry) - I can't recall a commcerial (paid for) image that did much for me, but then I don't go looking for them ... I don't talk about my photography unless it's bought up or relevant to the thread. I don't show it because it's irrelevant and inappropriate. I can't even talk about my business with someone losing their shit over it and getting all bent out of shape. I talk about my needs according to the demands of my business that is the photography business which is entirely relevant to the thread - That is all - It's something that a lot of people seem to think they know more about than me. Just FYI - my favourite photos are not on commission. I am NOT a commercial photographer. I mostly detest commercial photography, which is another thread entirely - but it's what I eek out a living from - it funds my personal art projects (which is my main focus), pays my bills and feeds my children. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted July 20, 2016 Share #292 Posted July 20, 2016 I'm talking about a 43mm diameter circle - one that encloses the 36*24 rectangle. Not sure where the 36mm square came from; I assumed a typo. However I have always been intrigued by a manufacturer, e.g. Leica, introducing a 36cm square sensor. This gives us more area to work with and no need to turn the camera for portrait mode. I have always presumed that as a FF lens can handle one axis at 36mm it cold handle both axes at 36mm rgds Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 20, 2016 Share #293 Posted July 20, 2016 However I have always been intrigued by a manufacturer, e.g. Leica, introducing a 36cm square sensor. This gives us more area to work with and no need to turn the camera for portrait mode. I have always presumed that as a FF lens can handle one axis at 36mm it cold handle both axes at 36mm rgds Harold, some pretty basic High School maths suggests otherwise - try some basic Pythagoras. Check the diagonal of a 24x36 rectangle, then see how it works for a 36 x 36 square. I'll give you a hint - the diameter of the image circle required for one is just over 43mm, and for the other it is almost 51mm ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted July 20, 2016 Share #294 Posted July 20, 2016 I have always presumed that as a FF lens can handle one axis at 36mm it cold handle both axes at 36mm It could handle both, just not at the same time. You could switch between 24 x 36 mm portrait and 36 x 24 mm landscape shots without turning the camera, but you could not take pictures in a 36 x 36 mm square format. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted July 20, 2016 Share #295 Posted July 20, 2016 It could handle both, just not at the same time. You could switch between 24 x 36 mm portrait and 36 x 24 mm landscape shots without turning the camera, but you could not take pictures in a 36 x 36 mm square format. I don't understand this bit. Wouldn't the sensor need to be 36mm high and 36mm wide to be able to do both portrait and landscape without turning the camera? So unless corners were missing why couldn't the sensor record on all of its 36x36 area? (Lenses permitting.) I know I'm wrong, but I can't see what I'm missing. I bet it's obvious though! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted July 20, 2016 Share #296 Posted July 20, 2016 Interesting the square sensor has popped up again, I alway thought this made sense given lenses are circular. I am not sure why you would need to set the camera to record horizontally or vertically ? Unless this is viewfinder driven Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted July 20, 2016 Share #297 Posted July 20, 2016 PS I think the next M will be more than 24 and nearer to 30. My punt is 28.5MP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted July 20, 2016 Share #298 Posted July 20, 2016 I don't understand this bit. Wouldn't the sensor need to be 36mm high and 36mm wide to be able to do both portrait and landscape without turning the camera? So unless corners were missing why couldn't the sensor record on all of its 36x36 area? (Lenses permitting.) The lenses are designed for a 43 mm image circle. A 36 x 36 mm sensor requires a 51 mm image circle which is actually closer to the 54 mm image circle of the Leica S. So yes, you could switch between portrait and landscape without turning the camera as you would stay clear of the corners then. The corners are the issue. Now with the M specifically there are also issues like the roller for the rangefinder coupling that might get in the way. And yes, the viewfinder would need some reworking, too. Let’s say it is not a very realistic proposition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasAM Posted July 20, 2016 Share #299 Posted July 20, 2016 I don't understand this bit. Wouldn't the sensor need to be 36mm high and 36mm wide to be able to do both portrait and landscape without turning the camera? So unless corners were missing why couldn't the sensor record on all of its 36x36 area? (Lenses permitting.) I know I'm wrong, but I can't see what I'm missing. I bet it's obvious though! For your help in understanding and for your information, The yellow area's are 24x36, hence the image of the M (portrait and landscape), the grey area is the 36x36 mm. As you notice in the drawing the circle of 43,2 mm. (COC of the M-lens) doesn't fit outside the grey area. You need a bigger CoC for this, a minimum of 51 mm. was drawing anyway. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/260659-how-many-megapixels-in-the-next-m/?do=findComment&comment=3081811'>More sharing options...
diddus Posted July 20, 2016 Share #300 Posted July 20, 2016 I'm actually still fine with the 18mp my M9 has ... though I did buy an S 006 to complement the M9. The 37.5 seems plenty to me, the Filesize is still bareable and decent to work with on a laptop. Between the M9 and M240 there was an increase of about 10MB in filesize (around 50%) which made the workflow slower, but did not add 50% more detail. For me the benefit of the M240 files to the M9 files felt more like 10%, maybe less. I couldn't really tell much of a difference in resolved Detail reproduction. The S 006 is a different level entirely. File size is 100% larger than the M9, and there is a whole lot more detail to be worked with. Maybe not 100% more, but it certainly feels much better. What I want to express, is basically that in order to truly make a difference with MP, it has to be at least 36mp ... 4mp extra just won't do ... But at that point it does become difficult for the S 007 .... While I did just get into the S System and I really enjoy using it (compared to the M240 which felt boring to me..) it seems that it has pushed Leica into a corner. It's probably too early to release a new S, but as long as the S only has 37.5 mp, they really can't go higher with the M SL Q .... Maybe an S-P 007 with a new Sensor (and upgrade program) could do the trick ... but who knows. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.